“In the aftermath of the Paris atrocities there are demands for action: dropping bombs and air-strikes, shoot-to-kill policies, more special interrogation techniques (ie, torture), less freedom of movement, more intrusion and less privacy, more powers for the security services, and so on.

“What seems to be a feature of many of these demands is that there is no attempt to explain the supposed cause-and-effect. It is almost as if the merit of the proposals is self-evident, a sign of virility: something bad has happened, and so something must be done in return.

“But each such demand raises two issues: one of practicality, and one of principle. That is: would the proposal actually help, and does the proposal conflict with the supposed principles, and way of life, we are presumably seeking to defend”.

Practice: ‘just doing “something” does not mean you are doing the right thing. It may make no difference, or it may make things worse’.

Principle: there appears to be a genuine risk that we could end up undermining – even subverting – the very principles of personal autonomy, the rule of law and freedom of expression which the West can and should be defending and asserting.

One Response to Would the proposals made after the Paris atrocities actually help? And would they be consistent with the frequently asserted British values?

One thing that seems to be entirely ignored by both the Tories and, sadly, the majority of Labour MPs, is that everything they are planning to do, and everything they have already done is against international law.